A Dissenting Opinion Recorded at the All-Russian Conference of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party by the Social-Democratic Delegates from Poland, The Lettish Territory, St. Petersburg, Moscow, The Central Industrial Region and The Volga Area[3]

Thetactics of boycotting the State Duma, which helped the mass of
the people to form a correct opinion of the impotence and lack of
independence of that institution, found complete justification in the farcical
legislative activities of the State Duma and in its dissolution.

Butthe counter-revolutionary behaviour of the bourgeoisie and the compromising
tactics of the Russian liberals
prevented the immediate success of the boycott and compelled the proletariat to
take up the struggle against the land lord and bourgeois counter-revolution also
on the basis of
the Duma campaign.

TheSocial-Democrats must wage this struggle outside the Duma and in the Duma
itself in order to develop the class-consciousness of the proletariat, to
further expose to the whole people the harmfulness of constitutional illusions,
and to develop the revolution.

Inview of this state of affairs, and for the purposes mentioned above, the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party must take a most energetic part in the
present Duma campaign.

Theprincipal objects of the Social-Democratic election and Duma campaigns are:
firstly, to explain to the people the uselessness of the Duma as a means
of satisfying the demands of the proletariat and the revolutionary petty
bourgeoisie, especially the peasantry. Secondly, to explain to the people
the impossibility of achieving political liberty by parliamentary methods
as long as the real power remains in the hands of the tsar’s government,
and to explain the necessity of an armed uprising, of a provisional
revolutionary government and of a constituent assembly elected by
universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot. Thirdly, to
criticise the First Duma and reveal the bankruptcy of Russian liberalism,
and especially to show how dangerous and fatal it would be for the cause
of the revolution if the liberal-monarchist Cadet Party were to play the
predominant and leading role in the liberation movement.

Asthe class party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party must remain
absolutely independent throughout the election and Duma campaigns, and here,
too, must under no circumstances merge its slogans or tactics with those of any
other opposition or revolutionary party.

Therefore,at the first stage of the election campaign, i.e., before the masses,
it must as a general rule come out absolutely independently and put forward
only its own Party candidates.

Exceptionsto this rule are permissible only in cases of extreme necessity and
only in relation to parties that fully accept the main slogans of our immediate
political struggle, i.e., those which recognise the necessity of an armed
uprising and are fighting for a democratic republic. Such agreements, however,
may only extend to the nomination of a joint list of candidates, without in any
way restricting the independence of the political agitation carried on by the
Social-Democrats.

Inthe workers’ curia the Social-Democratic Party must come out absolutely
independently and refrain from entering into agreements with any other
party.

Atthe higher stages of the election, i.e., at the assemblies of electors in the
towns and of delegates and electors in the countryside, partial agreements may
be entered into exclusively for the purpose of distributing seats
proportionately
to the number of votes cast for the parties entering the agreement. In this
connection, the Social-Democratic Party distinguishes the following main types
of bourgeois parties according to the consistency and determination of their
democratic views:
(a) the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Polish Socialist Party
and similar republican
parties,[1]
(b) the Popular Socialists and the Trudoviks of
a similar
type;[2]
(c) the Cadets.

Notes

[1]
Perhaps the Zionist socialists also come under this
category.[4]—Lenin

[2]
Perhaps including certain Jewish democrats. We are not competent to
judge of these matters without having the opinion of the Jewish
Social-Democrats.—Lenin

[3]The Second Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.
(“First All-Russian”) was held in Tammerfors November 3-7 (16-20), 1906,
attended by 32 delegates.

Theconference heard four reports on the question of the election campaign f or
the Second State Duma. Lenin spoke in support of the Bolshevik platform and
against a bloc with the Cadets. Mensheviks and Bundists defended a bloc with
Cadets. By a majority of 15 votes to 14, the conference adopted a Menshevik
resolution. As a counter to this resolution Lenin put forward a
“Dissenting Opinion”, a Bolshevik platform signed by 14 delegates (6
Bolsheviks, 5 Polish and 3 Lettish Social-Democrats).

OnNovember 6, Lenin spoke at the conference criticising the Menshevik draft
election platform presented by the Central Commit tee for confirmation by the
conference (the draft was published on November 3 (16) in
Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 6). The conference adopted a resolution for
introducing amendments into the draft election platform. On the same day Lenin
spoke in the debate on the convocation of an extraordinary Party congress and
insisted on the campaign
for a “labour congress” being discussed as a question of
violation of Party discipline.

Whileconfirming the resolution on “Unity of the Election Campaign in the
Localities”, the conference adopted an amendment of Lenin’s. The text of
the resolution and Lenin’s amendment to it are given in his article “Party
Discipline and the Fight Against the Pro-Cadet Social-Democrats” (see
p. 323 of this volume). The conference instructed the Central Committee to
publish in the report of the conference all draft resolutions and dissenting
opinions. The Menshevik Central Committee, however, published only the
conference resolutions, omitting the dissenting opinion of the Bolsheviks (see
Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 7).

Acriticism of the work of the conference was given by Lenin (in addition to the
above-mentioned article) in his article “Blocs with the Cadets” (see
pp. 307-19 of this volume).